Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Erectile tissue[change source]

Maybe include something about erectile tissue? Or that it's not just a penis that can become erect, although that is commonly what it refers to. — This unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs) .

added basic info on Corpus cavernosum and how erections occur. -- Creol(talk) 04:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Testosterone[change source]

"Testosterone is a hormone (chemical made by the body) that makes a person feel like a man." <--- is this seriously the most scientific and accurate statement that we can have there? come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 00:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For the purpose of this article, I think not much more is needed. More details can be provided at the "Testosterone" article. — Cheers, Truth's Out There talk 08:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maturity of information[change source]

It seems as though there has been a lack of maturity towards the word erection thus far on Wikipedia. I'm requesting more information about the word erection and its many meanings outside of the human penis and will also be researching and writing information that I find.

Not simple[change source]

Large chunks of text written badly, sentences too long, language not simple... Macdonald-ross (talk) 11:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modern views: Poor research[change source]

These two references are completely incorrect.

40. "The female orgasm during intercourse". WebMD. 1999. Retrieved 2008-08-06.

41. Kevin Pezzi (2004). "Questions and answers about sexual anatomy: What is the cul-de-sac? Is it the ultimate pleasure spot?". Retrieved 2008-08-06.

40 does not mention what is claimed earlier. 41 is a spam Google Doc. There is previous unsourced OR that was at the top of the section. The section also includes this statement implying that some of the content is not well-supported. Therefore, I am removing this section. Editors may choose to restore it when and if it is cleaned up and properly. --Gotanda (talk) 01:17, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Poor research: Erection lasting too long[change source]

Most of this section is unreferenced. The refs that are there generally do not support the content of the article.

Ref 27 "Relief in sight for sufferers of constant erections". New Scientist. is a mouse study.

Ref 28 does not seem to work. Page does not load.

Ref 29 "Feasibility of the Use of Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitors in a Pharmacologic Prevention Program for Recurrent Priapism". Journal of Sexual Medicine. 3 (6): 1077–1084. doi:10.1111/j.1743-6109.2006.00333.x. PMID 17100941. does not support the statement. Very small preliminary study which itself states the limitations and that a clinical trial needs to be conducted. Potentially dangerous, incorrect medical advice.

This is part of a pattern of poor research on this article and questionable reliability. Therefore, I am deleting this section. If properly researched and corrected, a version can be restored. --Gotanda (talk) 01:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that there was some dubious and unnecessary content in there. I don't think I wrote any of that. The following two sentences should be in the article, however:
If a man's erection lasts for more than four hours, this is a medical problem called priapism (pronounced PRYE-ə-pi-z(ə)m). The man must go to a doctor or hospital quickly if it happens. Tetsuo (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I thought it was yours. You have been making a lof of complex edits to these articles. It might be better to slow down and only add sentences written simply. Continuously adding complex content is a problem. --Gotanda (talk) 07:22, 4 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The English Wikipedia includes that general statement, but does not provide a reference. The French Wikipedia includes a similar statement, with this reference: [1] Tetsuo (talk) 05:23, 3 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]